healing/recovery through venting?

[_wenglund]

Wade,

I've already answered this question. Whatever your definition of venting, it's a positive, therapeutic activity when it leads people to confront their feelings and put them behind them. It's not healthy if it leads people to obsess on those feelings. As I've said, most of the "venting" I'm familiar with took place on RfM. I'd say the healthy venters are those who came, vented, and moved on. It really doesn't matter what the venting looks like. The research I quoted seems to bear that out.

Great. To you, one way to distinguish between therapeutic/healthy venting and unhealthy venting is whether the venter moves on or obsesses. Anything else?

For example, to your mind, could the intensity of the venting, or the form of the venting, or the context of the venting, make a difference whether venting in GENERAL is healthy or not (see my Mr. X analogy)?

Also, does anyone else have something to add?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would imagine it would vary by the person. As the research I quoted indicated, it's difficult to make a blanket statement about what is out of bounds in venting. After all, one requirement for it to be venting at all is that the venter feel free to express everything he or she is feeling. You wouldn't for example, say that those in a rape victim support group should refrain from saying anything that might be offensive to rapists, would you?

The best and most accurate way to determine what's appropriate, as I've said, seems to be whether the venting is productive in terms of helping the venter get through the grieving process (that's really what we're talking about here). What we see on RfM, for example, is the anger stage of the grieving process. Ever read Sylvia Plath's "Daddy"? A better verbalization of this stage of grieving I've never seen. Was it inappropriate for her to call her father a Nazi? Or was it therapeutic?

Are you equating "venting" with "grieving"? Or, are you suggesting that "venting" may a part of the "grieving process"? In other words, would you describe the typical activities at RFM as "venting" or "grieving" or both ("venting" as a part of the "grieving process")?

I haven't read Plath's book. Could you summarize what she says about venting and grieving?

The reason that I ask is because, as I understand from what RFMers have told me, the "venting" is in response to feelings of perceived victimization, whereas my understand of grief is that it is in response to perceived loss of charished things. While they may be related in some circumstances (for example: a rape victim may feel victimized by the rapist, and vent as a result thereof, while also feeling a loss of personal security and privacy, and grieve as a result therof), there may be reasonable questions whether they apply in the case of RFM, and these two things seem to me to be separate issues that while perhaps dealt with concurrenty, are, nevertheless, perhaps best dealt with separately.

I just checked with some websites on venting and grieving, and there are some who combine the two, but there are others that mention anger rather than venting. That may seem like an insignificant distinction, but I think it may prove significant when vetting the reasons for the anger vs various causes of venting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Are you equating "venting" with "grieving"? Or, are you suggesting that "venting" may a part of the "grieving process"? In other words, would you describe the typical activities at RFM as "venting" or "grieving" or both ("venting" as a part of the "grieving process")?

Anger is often part of the grieving process. I would imagine it would be unhealthy not to express that anger.

I haven't read Plath's book. Could you summarize what she says about venting and grieving?

Sylvia Plath was a poet, and "Daddy" is one her more famous poems. It's a poem about grieving, and it's pretty damn angry.

The reason that I ask is because, as I understand from what RFMers have told me, the "venting" is in response to feelings of perceived victimization, whereas my understand of grief is that it is in response to perceived loss of charished things. While they may be related in some circumstances (for example: a rape victim may feel victimized by the rapist, and vent as a result thereof, while also feeling a loss of personal security and privacy, and grieve as a result therof), there may be reasonable questions whether they apply in the case of RFM, and these two things seem to me to be separate issues that while perhaps dealt with concurrenty, are, nevertheless, perhaps best dealt with separately.

Most RfMers I have spoken with (and I include myself) would wholeheartedly agree that our grief is "in response to perceived loss of charished (sic) things." In fact, I've seen RfMers go out of their way to say "I am not a victim." If we are victims at all, we are victims of deception, and as I have said, a lot of my anger I aimed at myself for my own part in self-deception. In short, where do you draw the line between grief and victimhood? I would think it depends on the person. Thus venting and grieving don't follow some prescribed path, and you can't tell people who are grieving that they are only allowed to do so in ways that don't offend anyone else.

I just checked with some websites on venting and grieving, and there are some who combine the two, but there are others that mention anger rather than venting. That may seem like an insignificant distinction, but I think it may prove significant when vetting the reasons for the anger vs various causes of venting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What exactly are they venting if not anger and grief, Wade? Again, the two are part of our experience, which you clearly don't understand, not having been through this process. So, it's rather unhelpful to draw lines between venting and grief or anger and grief.

I know someone who was sexually abused by a parent, and when that parent died, she was a wreck for quite some time. She told me, "I love him because he's my dad, but I hate him more than anyone in the world." Was she wrong to grieve? Was she wrong to be angry? Was she wrong to express both to me, or should she have kept both bottled up inside?

[_Runtu]

Maybe this will help. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross identified 5 stages of grief in her 1969 book On Death and Dying.

The stages are:

1. Denial - The "This can't be real" stage.: "This is not happening to me." "There must be a mistake"
2. Anger - The "Why me?" stage.: "How dare you do this to me?!" (either referring to God, the late person, or themselves)
3. Bargaining - The "If I do this, you’ll do that" stage.: "Just let me live to see my son graduate."
4. Depression - The "Defeated" stage.: "I can't bear to face going through this, putting my family through this."
5. Acceptance - The "This is going to happen" stage.: "I'm ready, I don't want to struggle anymore."

Kübler-Ross originally applied these stages to any form of catastrophic personal loss, such as the death of a loved one, or even divorce. She also claimed these steps do not necessarily come in order, nor are they all experienced by all patients, though she stated a person will always experience at least two.

It's pretty close to what I went through.

Stage 1: 2 years on FAIR trying to convince myself that the church really was true.
Stage 2: Several months of angry posts on RfM.
Stage 3: Taking President Hinckley's Book of Mormon challenge in an effort to regain a testimony.
Stage 4: Finally giving up and nearly killing myself.
Stage 5: Becoming comfortable with where I am, warts and all.

[_Ray A]

It's pretty close to what I went through.

Stage 1: 2 years on FAIR trying to convince myself that the church really was true.
Stage 2: Several months of angry posts on RfM.
Stage 3: Taking President Hinckley's Book of Mormon challenge in an effort to regain a testimony.
Stage 4: Finally giving up and nearly killing myself.
Stage 5: Becoming comfortable with where I am, warts and all.

What you just wrote there is of more benefit to me than five years of venting on RFM. I read this several times because of its impact. You may have written it on RFM, but that's a zone I rarely frequent for too long.

[_Runtu]

It's pretty close to what I went through.

Stage 1: 2 years on FAIR trying to convince myself that the church really was true.
Stage 2: Several months of angry posts on RfM.
Stage 3: Taking President Hinckley's Book of Mormon challenge in an effort to regain a testimony.
Stage 4: Finally giving up and nearly killing myself.
Stage 5: Becoming comfortable with where I am, warts and all.

What you just wrote there is of more benefit to me than five years of venting on RFM. I read this several times because of its impact. You may have written it on RFM, but that's a zone I rarely frequent for too long.

I'm not sure why this had an impact on you, but I'm glad it was beneficial. I've never put the process in these terms, but that's pretty much what happened to me.

[_Ray A]

I'm not sure why this had an impact on you, but I'm glad it was beneficial. I've never put the process in these terms, but that's pretty much what happened to me.

I can associate with the process of trying to regain testimony, and I mean TBM testimony. Off and on I think that went on for 15 years in my case. This experience was obviously no fly by night experience for you, and spending two years on FAIR trying to keep your testimony means you made a genuine effort to remain a believer. I know the process very well.

[_Runtu]

I'm not sure why this had an impact on you, but I'm glad it was beneficial. I've never put the process in these terms, but that's pretty much what happened to me.

I can associate with the process of trying to regain testimony, and I mean TBM testimony. Off and on I think that went on for 15 years in my case. This experience was obviously no fly by night experience for you, and spending two years on FAIR trying to keep your testimony means you made a genuine effort to remain a believer. I know the process very well.

I realize now that unconsciously, I thought if I could win debates on FAIR, there must be something substantial to Mormonism. I think you and I understand each other. I really wanted it to work. I did everything I could, everything I was supposed to do, and yet the whole thing collapsed when I realized just how much rationalization I had to do to keep my belief.

[_wenglund]

Wade,

I'm still mystified as to why you are offended by people talking about their own feelings and experiences.

I am even more mystified that you think I am. (Hint: I'm not)

Unless they are directing their venting at you, what business is it of yours?

Are you thinking that the "business" is solely the function of direction towards whom the venting is directed?

If I may step in here---I hardly think that "directed" is the correct verb here. It would be like saying that steam "venting" out of a hot tea kettle is "directed" somewhere. It isn't "directed" anywhere. It is the result of a build-up of pressure.

While the steam is a result of build-up of pressure, the release of that steam pressure (i.e. "venting") goes somewhere. In the case of a hot tea kettle, it is "directed" out the spout. In the case of humans, it may be directed in a variety of ways--some that may be therapeutic and others corrosive, and in a variety of directions.

So you're admitting that it is merely a function of this pressure being "directed out the spout" of the person doing the venting?

No, that is not what I have admitted (can you get anything I say correct?). Rather, I admitted: "it may be directed in a variety of ways--some that may be therapeutic and others corrosive, and in a variety of directions" (including towards the Church)

Well then, this means that your claims that this stuff is directed at the Church are totally unfounded.

It can't in any reasonable and rational way be interpreted to mean that (see above).

In other words, to you, using my analogy, it no longer is Mrs. X's business what Mr. X says about her to other people? It not the business of Mrs. X's children and friends what Mr. X says about his wife to others? If Mr X's venting takes the form of intense and sustained mockery, profanation, vulgarity, denegration, name-calling, gossip, teeth-gnashing, and vile accusations regarding his wive's charished beliefs, then it is not the business of those who share thoise beliefs?

With all due respect, Wade, I think this is a false analogy. There is a difference between "venting" about a specific person, vs. "venting" about a set of experiences, or an organization. Right?

Yes, there is a difference, but not a PRINCIPLE difference that would make the analogy false. The PRINCIPLE that my analogy is attempting to get at is not the difference you mentioned, but whether venting is the business of others based solely on where the venting is directed. I believe that the venting can be the business of those who may be included, in one way or another, as a subject of the venting. I believe the analogy bears that point out quite well.

But as has been established with your kettle analogy, the venting is simply directed "out" of the venter. It is not directed *towards* the Church. So your analogy remains false.

Were your premise correct, then your conclusion may follow. As expected, it isn't correct, and therefor your conclusion doesn't follow. The analogy stands.

On the other hand, thinking this over a bit more, and in an effort to give you the full benefit of the doubt, I suppose what you are saying could make a little bit of sense. But nonetheless, your scenario---based on the a priori tea kettle analogy---would require the outside person to make a proactive effort to seek out the venters. Thus, you have to *choose* to make it your business.

Not surprising, you are mistaken again. It does not require that. The venting can be drected into the face of the subject(s) of the venting as well as the subject of the venting can walk into the path of the venting.

And why in the world are you hanging around places like RfM that offend you?

Who says that it does and that I do? I have yet to do so. If or when I do, I will answer the question at that time. By then, sufficient foundation will have been laid to make the discussion meaningful and productive. Until then, PLEASE ENGAGE WHAT I HAVE ACTUALLY SAID. Is that asking too much?

To my mind, it would be like being a volunteer for the Democratic Party and then going over to a Republican fundraiser and complaining that they're being mean to Democrats.

Or, it could also be like a Jew viewing the website of the KKK. We'll see...in due time.

Again, a false analogy, since most KKK are not ex-Jews. Or are you claiming that one does not get to choose whether or not to be LDS?

You may have a point were the PRINCIPLE of my analogy about former membership in a group. It is not, and so you don't. No mention was made in John's analogy whether the Democrate was a former Republican or not, because that is not relevant. Rather, the PRINCIPLE at issue is whether someone shouldn't investigate or visit locations where they may be offended.

Nevertheless, we are indeed dealing with the PRINCIPLE of ex-Mormons and venting, so I think the issue of membership, and choice, is extremely important.

It would be extremely important (or important at all) if one ascribes to the fallacy of composition. Please keep in mind that we are talking about a GENERAL PRINCIPLE that may apply to ex-Mormons, not the other way aroung (i.e. atributes of ex-Mormonism applying the the GENERAL PRINCIPLE).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Runtu,

What specifically are you and other RFMers grieving the loss of?

I mean, the Church is still here. It hasn't changed. It still genuinely and sincerely believes it is true.

You, on the other hand, are the one who changed.

In truth, the Church lost you, one of its charished members. So, who really is due grief?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Runtu,

What specifically are you and other RFMers grieving the loss of?

I mean, the Church is still here. It hasn't changed. It still genuinely and sincerely believes it is true.

You, on the other hand, are the one who changed.

In truth, the Church lost you, one of its charished members. So, who really is due grief?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

That's perhaps one of the cruelest things anyone has ever said to me. I can't even respond to that.